Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 91 (JK)

Tarseem Pal & Anr. v. Rattan Wazir & Anr.

2012-03-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
Petitioners have questioned order dated 04.12.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby application seeking permission to place on record copy of notice, which is alleged to have been issued by the Evacuee Department, came to be dismissed, on the grounds taken in the memo of revision petition. A suit for possession and recovery of rent was decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. Defendants/appellants/petitioners herein have questioned the said judgment and decree by the medium of appeal, which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu. During the pendency of appeal, appellants/petitioners herein have moved an application for permission to place on record copy of notice, alleged to have been issued by the Evacuee Department, on the grounds taken in the application. The appellate court after hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application and held that the appellants have not carved out a case for passing appropriate orders in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) and also held that the issue involved in the main suit was whether the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, which was decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. Defendants-appellants have not taken the stand that whether they are the owners or Evacuee Department is the owner. If at all Evacuee Department was interested, it would have moved an application for arraying it as a party, which it has not chosen to do so and accordingly the appellate court dismissed the application. I am of the considered view that the appellate court has passed a well reasoned order and needs no interference. The defendants/appellants/petitioners herein have not pleaded that they are owners. The order on the face of it is an interim order and is not having trappings of finality. Thus on this score also the revision petition merits to be dismissed. The Apex Court in Gurdev Singh vs Mehnga Ram, AIR 1997 SC 3572 has held that the appellate court has jurisdiction to pass order in either way and cannot be questioned at interim stage by the medium of revision petition. Having glance of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with all CMPs.